Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 months ago
#61
In the quest to virtue signal as much as possible on the environment in the name of 0.01C, how high is the government willing to drive unemployment?
1
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 months ago
#62
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
In the quest to virtue signal as much as possible on the environment in the name of 0.01C, how high is the government willing to drive unemployment?
If some jobs are unsustainable for a greener future then we may as well address that now. We obviously wouldn't wish to cause a huge amount of redundancies if those people have no other jobs to turn to so we'll also be seeking to boost employment opportunities in other industries.

While we're on the subject, has your party dreamed up any environmental policies recently or are you still on zero?
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 months ago
#63
(Original post by 04MR17)
If some jobs are unsustainable for a greener future then we may as well address that now. We obviously wouldn't wish to cause a huge amount of redundancies if those people have no other jobs to turn to so we'll also be seeking to boost employment opportunities in other industries.

While we're on the subject, has your party dreamed up any environmental policies recently or are you still on zero?
I believe we remain on zero because we aren't big virtue signallers and instead live in the real world.

How many jobs are acceptable losses: 1 million? 2 million? 5 million?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 months ago
#64
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I believe we remain on zero because we aren't big virtue signallers and instead live in the real world.

How many jobs are acceptable losses: 1 million? 2 million? 5 million?
A real world with a climate emergency your party wants to do nothing about. :yy: Maybe that explains your poor election result. :dontknow:

For me personally (can't speak for others here), 1 million or fewer.
0
reply
TheRadishPrince
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 7 months ago
#65
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I believe we remain on zero because we aren't big virtue signallers and instead live in the real world.

How many jobs are acceptable losses: 1 million? 2 million? 5 million?
You aren't living in the real world if you think 5 million people in the UK will suddenly lose their jobs if you even give a thought to environmental policy.

Seriously though our environmental policy is in our manifesto, which I'm assuming you didn't bother reading as there is literally nothing there that screams an overall job loss to any where near the extent you are proposing.

Seems to just be a bunch of scare mongering with zero substance to back it.
Last edited by TheRadishPrince; 7 months ago
1
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 months ago
#66
(Original post by 04MR17)
A real world with a climate emergency your party wants to do nothing about. :yy: Maybe that explains your poor election result. :dontknow:

For me personally (can't speak for others here), 1 million or fewer.
A climate emergency with no real action being taken, almost as if the "climate emergency" is to make people like you vote for those declaring it.

All you have to do is look at the stats to see why declaring a climate emergency and taking any real action about it is little more than virtue signalling. In 2017 the UK was the 17th biggest source of CO2 emissions contributing a whopping 1.02%, we could disappear off the face of the Earth and the impact would be negligible. We also have reductions in emissions both nominally and as a percentage, not because of intervention but because of the free market; it is in the interest of car manufacturers to produce more efficient engines, two benefits: 1) their car is cheaper to run than their competition, 2) they can boast green credentials; the same is true for power generation, more efficient systems mean lower prices and good PR; factories have lower costs if they can increase efficiency.

Of course that's not the whole picture, in 1990 the UK accounted for 2.60% of emissions, our nominal emissions are only down 35.6% over the last three decades but our contribution has collapsed as a percentage of the whole, why? China: nearly 5 times the emissions in 2017 vs 1990; four fold increase for India; three fold for Indonesia; four fold for Malaysia; three fold for Thailand; for places like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Loas it's more than a 10 fold increase (just shy of 26 fold for Cambodia). While many of these are large increases from a very low base this growth is accelerating as SE Asia and Africa industrialise and populations grow and become increasingly affluent increasing household energy demand.

You wish to spend over a trillion on a hundredth of a degree just to be able to say you're doing something, we recognise that such action does not give tangible improvements because of the other 99% (and growing)
0
reply
yaseen1000
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 months ago
#67
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
A climate emergency with no real action being taken, almost as if the "climate emergency" is to make people like you vote for those declaring it.

All you have to do is look at the stats to see why declaring a climate emergency and taking any real action about it is little more than virtue signalling. In 2017 the UK was the 17th biggest source of CO2 emissions contributing a whopping 1.02%, we could disappear off the face of the Earth and the impact would be negligible. We also have reductions in emissions both nominally and as a percentage, not because of intervention but because of the free market; it is in the interest of car manufacturers to produce more efficient engines, two benefits: 1) their car is cheaper to run than their competition, 2) they can boast green credentials; the same is true for power generation, more efficient systems mean lower prices and good PR; factories have lower costs if they can increase efficiency.

Of course that's not the whole picture, in 1990 the UK accounted for 2.60% of emissions, our nominal emissions are only down 35.6% over the last three decades but our contribution has collapsed as a percentage of the whole, why? China: nearly 5 times the emissions in 2017 vs 1990; four fold increase for India; three fold for Indonesia; four fold for Malaysia; three fold for Thailand; for places like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Loas it's more than a 10 fold increase (just shy of 26 fold for Cambodia). While many of these are large increases from a very low base this growth is accelerating as SE Asia and Africa industrialise and populations grow and become increasingly affluent increasing household energy demand.

You wish to spend over a trillion on a hundredth of a degree just to be able to say you're doing something, we recognise that such action does not give tangible improvements because of the other 99% (and growing)
Climate change is a real concern that needs to be addressed immediately . Your arguments are based on the short run economic impacts yet you fail to recognize the long term social impacts . If we are unable to address climate change seriously thousands of species could be wiped off the planet. These species all play a role in maintaining our ecosystem. Without these species are food yields would mostly likely fall and thus would push millions if not hundreds of millions more into starvation . The question is would rather prioritize a few million jobs or the lives of hundreds of millions of humans ?
Last edited by yaseen1000; 7 months ago
0
reply
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 months ago
#68
(Original post by TheRadishPrince)
You aren't living in the real world if you think 5 million people in the UK will suddenly lose their jobs if you even give a thought to environmental policy.

Seriously though our environmental policy is in our manifesto, which I'm assuming you didn't bother reading as there is literally nothing there that screams an overall job loss to any where near the extent you are proposing.

Seems to just be a bunch of scare mongering with zero substance to back it.
(Original post by yaseen1000)
Climate change is a real concern that needs to be addressed immediately . Your arguments are based on the short run economic impacts yet you fail to recognize the long term social impacts . If we are unable to address climate change seriously thousands of species could be wiped off the planet. These species all play a role in maintaining our ecosystem. Without these species are good yields would mostly likely fall and thus would push millions if not hundreds of millions more into starvation . The question is would rather prioritize a few million jobs or the lives of hundreds of millions of humans ?
Hear Hear! Our environmental policy as stated in our manifesto will address the climate emergency head on and any suggestions that it would lead to significant job losses of millions is essentially scaremongering with zero substance to back it. Speaking in economic terms, our environmental policy will have some short-term impacts but these impacts are minimal and we will see in the long-term, the social benefits of doing this.
1
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 7 months ago
#69
(Original post by CoffeeAndPolitics)
Hear Hear! Our environmental policy as stated in our manifesto will address the climate emergency head on and any suggestions that it would lead to significant job losses of millions is essentially scaremongering with zero substance to back it. Speaking in economic terms, our environmental policy will have some short-term impacts but these impacts are minimal and we will see in the long-term, the social benefits of doing this.
A Green economy creates more local jobs, reduces many bad health conditions (more exercise, less illnesses from bad air quality for starters), and provides more energy security. More people working to build wind, wave and solar power, more people working in public transport, less spend on medicines for conditions such as asthma as fewer people develop the condition. More walking reducing the level of overweight and obesity amongst the population.

That's just for starters.
1
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 months ago
#70
(Original post by Rakas21)
Welcoming! Do i smell the opressment of economic liberty on the horizon.

We should vastly reduce regulation around bettling and gambling.
Ever since the Labour of Children, etc., in Factories Act 1833, Parliament has felt it reasonable to provide protection in law for children in certain activities. Indeed, it could be argued that this principle was established by the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802, introduced by the founder of the Conservative Party, Sir Robert Peel.
2
reply
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 months ago
#71
(Original post by Rakas21)
My questions are to the new Chancellor (congrats)..

1) To what degree have you studied economics or is this role just a bit of fun?

2) What is your goal with regards to the fiscal position of the nation. Do you seek surplus?
Will we hear a response from the newly appointed Chancellor? Samuel J. Booker
1
reply
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 months ago
#72
(Original post by EagleKingdom)
Will we hear a response from the newly appointed Chancellor? Samuel J. Booker
Probably not.
1
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 months ago
#73
(Original post by BosslyGaming)
Apologies for the delayed response. On the budgetary end, obviously I want to provide as much funding as possible to our judiciary processes, our sentencing processes and generally ensuring we can provide the fairest justice system possible. However, I think it would be a little unfair and inaccurate to commit to £X here and £Y there without prior internal discussion with the Chancellor and the rest of the Government. We've got a new Coalition Government, so we need to ensure every penny spent is agreeable for all parts of the Govermment and, ultimately, favourable for the country. So to sum up, unfortunately I can't provide any exact figures of what I and the Government plan to provide funding-wise, however I absolutely commit to pushing the Chancellor and the Government for every possible penny to ensure that, in my opinion, one of the most important parts of our everyday lives can function in the best way possible - giving us a safe and fair country.
I understand, thank you for your response.
0
reply
EagleKingdom
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 months ago
#74
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
Probably not.
Well... I appreciate the honesty.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 months ago
#75
(Original post by Rakas21)
What is your goal with regards to the fiscal position of the nation. Do you seek surplus?
This government will seek to overall reduce the deficit. That doesn't mean we wish to achieve surplus by the end of term, as we feel that would be harmful to the people of this country. However, we won't be aiming to increase the deficit at all.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 months ago
#76
If anyone has questions on issues concerning Culture, Media and Sport policy please refrain from asking in this thread as barnetlad will soon be taking Ministers Questions on the topic.
1
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 months ago
#77
I will repeat the question posed by others: what are the economic qualifications of the chancellor of the exchequer? Samuel J. Booker 04MR17
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 months ago
#78
(Original post by Connor27)
I will repeat the question posed by others: what are the economic qualifications of the chancellor of the exchequer? Samuel J. Booker 04MR17
I would be able to answer if I knew. Developments on this topic will come next week.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 months ago
#79
(Original post by Connor27)
I will repeat the question posed by others: what are the economic qualifications of the chancellor of the exchequer? Samuel J. Booker 04MR17
Probably better than the History graduate Gideon Osborne.
0
reply
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#80
Report 7 months ago
#80
Why does it matter what economic qualifications a person has to play Chancellor? Anyone can play any role as long as they are interested in it. I don't see why members need specific qualifications to play a certain cabinet minister.

Being qualified in economics doesn't mean that the budget will be good as we seen with Rakas (who has a degree in economics).
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (477)
66.43%
No (241)
33.57%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise